The start of this New Year marks, I believe, an important new phase in European integration. In this semester we will make real progress on stronger economic governance and policy coordination in the European Union.I just want everybody to be clear about this, the people in favour of this are, according to the former Marxist,
This semester's news will be clear: it is not only the so-called "federalists" who want to see more economic governance and co-ordination; it is the markets and also our international partners that are expecting it. More economic governance and coordination is not an ideological dream. It is a pragmatic need. Those defending it are not utopians, but realists.
The Commission's proposals are on the table and we will keep driving this agenda, and we will come with further policy initiatives.
In fact work has already been producing some results. On the 1st January, the three new supervisory authorities for the financial markets have begun their work.
1) Fedralists,Well yes, I conceed that federasts might be keen on "stronger economic governance and policy coordination" they have always been in favour of it. But the markets? Really? They may see it as one solution to the problem, but it isn't their be all and end all in any way. Saying that the markets have a desire is weird in itself. If they desire anything it is that they desire stability, but if there was perfect stability then they would ossify, what they need is compaetition, and of course having one size fits all policies certainly does not encourage that.
3) International partners.
The City of London for example has not been vocal in its support for Mr Barosso's exemplars, the new EU regulatory bodies of which he boasts. I would love him to be able to point to the evidence that 'the markets' have any such desire.
International partners. Eh? Such as? The UN? What the hell is he talking about here? Does China want to see this, or India, or anybody? Is he just making it up?
And even if these unamed international partners did indeed want what he suggests they want, so what! Are we to set policy to please them? Is that what it is all about? Doing what others want us to do, rather than what we want to do?
And of course there is something missing from his analysis isn't there? Popular support. You know, those inconvient things, people.
He bangs on about how he is such a democrat but neglects the one thing that matters, the support of the people he purportedly represents. So a pox on him and his claim to realism. Realism would make him realise that he has no mandate, no legitimacy no support from those who matter for any of this.
As an addition, the remainder of his speech was such a hodge podge that it is hard to criticise, but here goes anyway.
Narked he is,
Let me tell you very frankly that I am unhappy with the progress made on energy efficiency.Let me tell you something, you condescending patronisng autocrat. I don't care if you are disappointed with the countries of Europe. Who ever thought it mattered whether you are disappointed or not? The nations and peoples of Europe are not little children for you to tut at and wag your stubby Iberian finger at. How dare you?
And they you compound this by being stupid as well. You want growth, but you want to cut energy use by 20%.
Work it out you lesser Faraday, you pygmoid genius, work it out. If you and you cabal set binding figures of a 20% cut in energy use, then you are going to get a cut in growth. It is that simple. To think otherwise is not realisim, but the utopianism you deride and deny.
Just go home, take early retirement and let the people of this continent run their own lives free from the hectoring idiocies and inanities that spew ill-formed from your lacivious lips.